Showing posts with label delegate selection plans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label delegate selection plans. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Uncommitted delegates are not necessarily Listen to Michigan delegates

Leading the day at FHQ...

The Michigan presidential primary is now in the rearview mirror, and while others will move on to the next contests or focus on the perceived threats the results in the Great Lakes state have on both likely nominees, FHQ will do what it does. And namely, that means digging into the delegates. 

For those who are interested in such things, there are a pair of delegate stories out of Michigan -- one on each side -- worth fleshing out some. 

Democrats
The story of the night in Michigan -- well, it seemed like it had already been flagged as the story well in advance of last night -- was how Listen to Michigan's push for Michiganders to vote uncommitted in protest of President Biden's Gaza policy would fare. Lowball estimates from the group and its allies aside, the group did pretty well. And by pretty well, FHQ means that they were probably wildly successful in capturing the attention of media folks and political junkies desperate for something other than "Biden and Trump win again."

Well, Biden and Trump won again and Listen to Michigan certainly grabbed some attention. Some will try to read the tea leaves on what that portends for the general election in a battleground state -- a fool's errand -- but there are other ways of looking at how uncommitted did in the Michigan primary.

Some of this FHQ contextualized yesterday over at FHQ Plus. Uncommitted 2024 did about as well as Uncommitted 2012 would have done had the Michigan Democratic presidential primary actually counted and not been a beauty contest that cycle. And that is to say that Uncommitted 2024 failed to hit 15 percent statewide to qualify for any PLEO or at-large delegates. Despite that, Uncommitted 2024, just like Uncommitted 2012 would have, managed to qualify in a couple of congressional districts. Then, it was the sixth and tenth districts. Last night saw Uncommitted 2024 qualify in the sixth and 12th districts, receiving just north of 17 percent in each. 

And what does that get Uncommitted 2024 in the delegate count? 

Two delegates. 

One delegate in each of those districts. 

[As of this writing, the Michigan secretary of state has all 83 counties reporting, but the tally may not be complete.]

However, just because there are two uncommitted delegates does not mean that those are two Listen to Michigan delegates. Again, they are uncommitted delegate slots. Uncommitted. Any national convention delegate candidate that files as uncommitted in the sixth and 12th districts can run for one of those two slots. It will be the uncommitted delegates to the congressional district conventions in May who will decide who gets those positions. 

Listen to Michigan may organize its supporters in Michigan to run for and win spots to the congressional district conventions -- more on that process here -- but the group does not have a lock on those delegate slots. Nor does it have the ability to vet potential national convention delegates in the same way that an actual candidate and their campaign can. The group will not have that check. 

In other words, Listen to Michigan is vulnerable to a knowledgable and organized delegate operation, one that could run or overrun the uncommitted delegate pool in those congressional districts and take those uncommitted slots for their own. 

Yes, FHQ is suggesting that the Biden campaign could swoop in and win those uncommitted delegate slots in Michigan's sixth and 12th districts.  

But they likely will not. That would likely end up being far more trouble than it is worth. Why stir up an angry hornets' nest any more than it is already riled up over two delegates? There really is no need to. Had uncommitted fared better last night, reaching, say, a third of the vote, then maybe there could have been a more concerted effort to contest the selection of delegate candidates to those allocated slots. But as it is -- at two delegates -- why attempt that particular flex?


Republicans
FHQ is not really sure what the deal with the AP delegate count in Michigan on the Republican side was, but it had been stuck on Trump 9, Haley 2 for the longest time. The Michigan Republican delegate selection plan is weird, but this is not that hard (even with an incomplete tally at this point).

Here is the number one needs to know: 25 percent.

If Nikki Haley slips under 25 percent in the Michigan primary results then she will claim three (3) delegates. As it stands now, she is over that mark and would be allocated four (4) delegates.

Trump will get the rest regardless of whether his total climbs some or falls. Why? 

Well, as of now, Trump is sitting on 68.2 percent of the vote in the Michigan primary. That would qualify him for 11 delegates. If the former president's total rose above 68.75 percent, then he would grab the last delegate, his would-be twelfth. But he would claim that delegate no matter what. Even if Trump stayed right where he is -- under 68.75 percent -- he would still win the last delegate. It would be unallocated based on the results, but all unallocated delegates go to the winner of the primary. 


--
FHQ has started rolling out the state-by-state series on Democratic delegate allocation rules over at FHQ Plus. So far there have been looks at rules in...
What's the difference between Democratic and Republican delegate selection rules? FHQ Plus has it covered.

Looking for more on delegates and delegate allocation? Continue here at the central hub for Republican delegate allocation rules on the state level at FHQ. That includes the latest from...

--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Friday, January 19, 2024

How many delegates do New Hampshire Democrats have anyway?

Leading the day at FHQ...

By now the story is old hat. At least around these parts it is. The Democratic National Committee altered its presidential primary calendar rules for the 2024 cycle. New Hampshire Democrats did not take kindly to the change that saw South Carolina's primary nudged into the first slot and spent 2023 openly defying the national party rules changes. 

Now, under the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party, such a move on the part of New Hampshire Democrats carries a penalty, a 50 percent reduction in the size of the base delegation. That reduction has taken place, and New Hampshire Democrats now have 10 delegates to the national convention in Chicago later this summer. But the reporting, if one reads it closely, still seems to toggle between saying that New Hampshire Democrats will lose/have lost half of their delegates and that Granite state Democrats will lose/have lost all of their delegates.

So which is it? Half or all?

Actually, it is both. The actions of the New Hampshire Democratic Party -- opting into the noncompliant state-run presidential primary on January 23 -- cost the party half of its delegates. That is done. However, due to a tweak in the national party delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle, state parties cannot allocate any delegates to any candidate who campaigns in a state like New Hampshire which has a primary scheduled in violation of the guidelines. Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson cannot even win any actual delegates by being on the ballot in the upcoming primary in the Granite state (even if they manage to qualify). 

So, New Hampshire Democrats have 10 delegates but cannot allocate them. Half and all, all rolled into one. 

The question is, what happens with those 10 delegates? Obviously the back and forth continues between the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the national party to resolve their impasse. But in the meantime, here are some thoughts at FHQ Plus on where things may go as primary season progresses. 


--
In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...
  • Utah: Republicans in the Beehive state have once again shifted to caucuses for selecting and allocating delegates. Otherwise, the same eccentricities remain under the surface in the allocation process.
  • Vermont: FHQ often says that there are only so many ways to proportionally allocate three congressional district delegates under RNC rules. Well, that is true in terms of the 17 delegates Vermont Republicans have to offer as well. Nevertheless, Republicans in the Green Mountain state have built some unique features into their delegate selection plan.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, December 21, 2023

Colorado Republicans Eyeing a Primary Switch? ...and more

Leading the day at FHQ...

The Colorado Supreme Court decision to remove Donald Trump from the presidential primary ballot in the state has the state Republican Party exploring a late shift from a primary to a caucus. But that process is more complicated than simply declaring the change. More in a gift article at FHQ Plus.


--
In the continuing state-by-state series on delegate allocation rules, FHQ examines changes for 2024 in...
  • The US Virgin Islands: Republicans in the territory pushed the limits of the RNC rules in putting together a delegate selection plan for this cycle. ...and paid a price for it.
  • South Carolina: Meanwhile in the Palmetto state, Republicans are back to business as usual in a competitive presidential nomination cycle. But there are some interesting tweaks to an allocation system that has been a model of consistency for much of the post-reform era. 


--
See more on our political/electoral consulting venture at FHQ Strategies. 
Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:45 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, August 5, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] Newly adopted California Republican delegate allocation rules offer clear benefits

The following is cross-posted from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--
But the plan is a gamble for Trump and the state party for different reasons:


Did FHQ not just discuss California delegate allocation rules?

Yup. 

But the California Republican Party executive committee jettisoned that widely circulated (and panned) plan in favor of an alternate version, a version that seemingly balances the party’s desire to draw candidates into the Golden state and the Trump campaign’s push to maximize its delegates in the contest next year. Those benefits are clear enough on the surface, but neither is guaranteed. 

And that means the revised delegate allocation scheme for 2024 is a gamble of sorts. For California Republicans and for Trump. Delegate allocation rules can be a zero sum game and the friction that developed in and around the Executive Committee meeting on Saturday, July 29 from multiple sides was evidence of the high stakes involved. 

What changes did the California Republican Party make? And what does that mean for the 2024 race for the Republican presidential nomination?


The adopted changes

The initially proposed changes offered by the California Republican Party set up a plan with a few notable features:

  • A proportional allocation of the 13 at-large (and automatic/party) delegates based on the statewide vote with no qualifying threshold and no winner-take-all trigger (should one candidate win a majority of the vote statewide). 

  • A proportional allocation of the 3 delegates in each of the 52 congressional districts based on the results within each congressional district. The top finisher in a congressional district vote would receive two delegates and the runner-up would receive the remaining delegate. Like the allocation of the at-large delegates described above, there would be no winner-take-all trigger should one candidate win a majority of the vote within the district. 

That method differs from the system the state party utilized in 2020 and it is also different than the plan adopted on Saturday. The newly adopted plan — the allocation plan California Republicans will use in 2024 — shed the separate allocation scheme for at-large and congressional district delegates and returned to a system that resembles the 2020 plan with one big exception: there is no qualifying threshold. But exactly like the 2020 delegate allocation among Golden state Republicans, the 2024 system will have the following provisions:

  • All 169 delegates, including at-large, automatic/party and congressional district delegates, will be pooled (meaning they will all be allocated as one bloc). Again, that is just as it was for 2020.

  • All 169 delegates will be allocated proportionally based on the statewide results. That, too, is just the same as under the 2020 rules. 

  • If any candidate wins the California primary with more than 50 percent of the vote, then all 169 delegates will be allocated to that candidate. Just like the 2020 plan, California Republicans have included in their 2024 rules a winner-take-all trigger or winner-take-all threshold. 

However, unlike 2020, more candidates will likely be eligible for some share of the 169 delegates available because there will no longer be a 20 percent qualifying threshold, the highest bar allowed under Republican National Committee rules. That is a big difference. 

How big? 


The impact of 2020 versus 2024 rules

Pretty big.

Using the results from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary with the 2020 and 2024 California Republican Party allocation rules highlights the scale of the change.1

With no qualifying threshold, as under the 2024 rules, five additional candidates would have been allocated delegates as compared to the 2020 rules. And candidates with as little as two percent support would have claimed at least some share of the pool of 169 delegates.2 But importantly, the top two candidates — the only two who would have cleared the 20 percent threshold to qualify for delegates under the 2020 rules — would have lost a significant chunk of delegates in the transition from 2020 to 2024 rules. Sanders would have lost 34 and Biden, 26. 

Now, imagine that Sanders pulled in closer to half of the voters in the last California primary. Pretend Elizabeth Warren was not in the race and that the 13.2 percent the Massachusetts senator won went to Sanders instead. Under the 2020 California Republican allocation rules, Sanders would have won 108 delegates compared to 84 delegates according to the 2024 plan. What is clear is that Sanders would pay a price in delegates won without a qualifying threshold. 

FHQ raises the second scenario because Trump is currently hovering around the 50 percent mark in polling both nationally and in California. The penalty for not hitting the winner-take-all threshold, which is in the 2024 California Republican delegate allocation rules, would be significant, but it will be greater in the absence of a qualifying threshold. It makes strategic sense to secure the former threshold, but it is a gamble. 

If Trump does not hit it, then the price is steep and the net delegate advantage coming out of the California primary would likely differ very little from the original 2024 rules proposal that Republicans in the Golden state floated. However, if Trump does eclipse the 50 percent barrier and trips the winner-take-all trigger, then it is clearly close to a death knell for his opposition. A +169 is tough to overcome even if Super Tuesday’s results are mixed and states with truly winner-take-all rules lie ahead on the calendar. 

It is not that there are not advantages for Trump in this change (either relative to 2020 or the alternate 2024 proposal), but the new rules do place a great deal of pressure on the campaign to make it happen.

 

But why is there not a qualifying threshold?

That is the gamble the state party is making. 

If more candidates are eligible for delegates, then that may be enough of a carrot to lure candidates of all stripes into the state to campaign and spend money. In theory that makes sense. But in practice, the cost/benefit analysis may not work in the favor of California Republicans who are championing this revised plan. 

The candidates will go to California. They always do to raise money. But turning around and spending that money (in a variety of ways) in the Golden state may not offer as much bang for the candidates’ buck as it might in other states. Yes, California is the most delegate-rich state out there — and promises 169 delegates to anyone who can clear 50 percent in the primary — but it is also prohibitively expensive to reach voters and in turn win votes/delegates. And as long as Trump is threatening to hit the winner-take-all trigger, it may be enough to ward off concerted investment in the state. 

But where this plan is clever is in the fact that it potentially motivates all of the candidates. It draws the Trump campaign in to expend resources in the state to win all of the delegates. Yet, it potentially entices other candidates to take a risk to keep Trump under the majority mark and minimize the former president’s net delegate advantage coming out of California and Super Tuesday. 

And that is just it. Much of the above discusses California in isolation. But the California primary is not an isolated event. It falls on Super Tuesday when roughly a third of the total number of delegates will be allocated. Few may be able to run a truly national campaign leading up to March 5. And few may choose to incorporate California directly into their investments for Super Tuesday.3 The options may be better (and cheaper) elsewhere. 

Still, the Trump campaign is calling the change in California a win for them. And it may be. But only if the former president can win a majority. And that is not a sure thing.


--
1 FHQ is using the 2020 Democratic results because the California Democratic primary was both early (as the 2024 primary is) and competitive. The 2020 Republican primary in California was also on Super Tuesday but uncompetitive, and the 2016 Republican primary in the Golden state was later and fell after Donald Trump’s viable opposition had withdrawn from the race. 

2 That allocation outcome depends to some degree on how California Republicans choose to round. All fractional delegates are rounded up starting with the top vote-getter and progressing from there in descending order of vote share. Under different (and more conventional) rounding rules, even more candidates would have qualified for delegates (and with less than one percent support).

3 Candidates may choose to indirectly hit California through national ad buys instead.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 11:30 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Sunday, June 18, 2023

Sunday Series: What exactly are Nevada Republicans up to on delegate rules for 2024?

Nevada is, to a great degree, the redheaded stepchild of the early primary calendar. 

It almost always has been since the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2006 added the Nevada caucuses to the lineup for the 2008 cycle. Those caucuses in the Silver state were to have been between Iowa and New Hampshire under the rules adopted by national Democrats, but then Florida and Michigan crashed the party, pushing into January and setting off a domino effect on the rest of the early calendar. 

The Michigan move to January 15 forced the primary in New Hampshire, under state law, up two weeks, earlier than prescribed in the DNC rules. But Nevada Democrats hung back, keeping the party's caucuses at the point on the calendar consistent with the national party guidelines, 17 days before Super Tuesday. 

Thereafter, the Democratic rules institutionalized Nevada in the third position in the calendar order rather than in the second slot. 

Things were different on the Republican side of the ledger. Never intended to be a part of the early Republican calendar for 2008, Nevada Republicans, nonetheless, aligned their caucuses with the precinct meetings of Silver state Democrats in the middle of January. That had the benefits of moving the Republican caucuses into the mix and not ceding the early organization in the state to Democrats. But it also ultimately meant the Republican caucuses would be scheduled on the same date as the Republican primary in South Carolina.

However, because the 2008 delegate allocation in Nevada was not bound to the results of those caucuses, Republicans in the state skirted national party penalties on the timing of primaries and caucuses. After all, it was the DNC that had added Nevada to the early calendar for 2008. National Republicans had not. In fact, the Republican National Committee (RNC) did not exempt Nevada in their rules until the 2010 series of amendments were added to the rules adopted at the 2008 national convention in St. Paul. And even then, the Nevada Republican precinct caucuses did not elect, select, allocate or bind delegates to the national convention in 2012. Ron Paul ultimately controlled that delegation in Tampa.

Regardless, the Nevada caucuses had been added to the list (in the rules) of carve-out states the RNC allowed to hold contests before Super Tuesday. But the implementation of the caucuses in both 2008 and 2012 was problematic enough that it never seemed as if Nevada Republicans and the caucuses were on solid ground on the early calendar. Although no overt threats to Nevada's position ever really materialized, the legacy of the reluctant Republican adoption of Nevada as a part of the early presidential primary calendar has persisted. It has been ingrained in the fabric of how presidential campaigns have approached the state in the intervening years. 

Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the caucuses in Nevada were not and have not long been a featured part of the early Republican calendar. And it shows. Nevada often goes unmentioned in stories of candidate trips to the early states and when candidates do show up in the Silver state, the state is often talked about as a forgotten (or not focused upon) aspect of the beginnings of the nomination process. 

But is that about to change or is it in the process of changing? 


Winner-take-all?
No, FHQ does not mean the DeSantis visit to the Silver state this weekend is a change. Rather, it is something else oddly buried in the next to last paragraph in an NBC story about it. 
But, [former Nevada Republican Party executive director, Zachary] Moyle noted, Nevada does present a “massive opportunity” to candidates because of its “winner-take-all” system, in which all of its delegates are awarded to the candidate who carries the state.
This is actually news that either is big or deserves a fact check. Nevada conducting a primary or (likely) caucuses with winner-take-all rules in the early window of the Republican process is or would be a big deal. Sure, there are only roughly 25 delegates at stake, but if they were all to be allocated to the winner statewide, then that could prove to be a bigger net delegate margin than in a much larger state with far more delegates on the line under a more proportional system. Nevada could punch about its weight and deliver a fairly major victory early in the process. 

But is Nevada winner-take-all? 

Maybe?

According to Zachary Moyle, yes. But the standing rules that are posted on the Nevada Republican Party web page as of this writing suggest no:
In accordance with the Rules of the Republican National Committee, in Presidential election years, the Nevada Republican Party chooses that its National Delegates and Alternates shall be allocated proportionally based on the final results of the Nevada Presidential Preference Poll, the Alternative Presidential Preference Poll or the Presidential Primary Election, as appropriate, rounded to the nearest whole number.
Granted, those rules date to June 2020 after the Alternative Presidential Preference Poll (APPP) of the last cycle, a contest where President Trump won all of the delegates from the Silver state. But the APPP is not necessarily designed to be a winner-take-all contest. It is a contest that is triggered by an incumbent Republican president seeking reelection. But other candidates are eligible under the rules and can gain access to the ballot with the signatures of 20 members of the Nevada Republican Party State Central Committee. None did in time for the 2020 vote among the members of the NRPSCC, so Trump was the only name on the ballot. And by extension, he won all of the available Nevada delegates. 

But in a competitive cycle in a Nevada Presidential Preference Poll (caucuses) or a Presidential Primary Election, the allocation would be proportional. 

However, maybe those rules are obsolete. They could be. It may just be that the Nevada Republican Party has adopted new rules for 2024 in the time since June 2020 and the web page has simply not been updated. This is entirely possible.


But winner-take-all? In February?
Assume for a moment that the currently posted rules are wrong. They are outdated and a new version detailing the winner-take-all allocation rules for 2024 have not replaced them. Well, that does raise an interesting question. 

Are states with contests before March 15 not prohibited from using truly winner-take-all rules, where a plurality winner statewide wins all of the delegates? Yeah, actually that is true. But here is the thing: under Rule 16(c)(1) Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are exempt from both the winner-take-all restrictions and (for the most part) the timing restrictions barring states from holding contests before March 1. 

So...

If the Nevada rules have been changed and are now winner-take-all, then technically, that is compliant under RNC rules. And that is a reality that is flying under the radar for A LOT of people, including the campaigns. A winner-take-all Nevada is a Nevada that more candidates would be flocking to. They are not. ...at least not yet. 


What about that Nevada Republican Party lawsuit against the new presidential primary?
That may be the funny thing here. The lawsuit may actually point toward the posted rules being outdated. 

Why? 

A cursory dig through those rules turns up this section:
§ 7.0 Primary Election Contingency.
Should state law be amended to provide for a Presidential Primary Election, the provisions of this chapter regulating a Presidential Preference Poll shall be null and void, but all other provisions not related to the Poll otherwise regulating Precinct Meetings shall remain in force.
Read that section. It seems receptive to a presidential primary. It defers to any newly amended law providing for a presidential primary in the Silver state. If the Nevada Republican Party has not changed the rule, then that conflicts with the stated intent of the lawsuit. If the rule has been changed or stricken, then the recent presence of such a rule undermines lawsuit to some degree. Look, parties have the freedom of association under the first amendment and a party can alter the rules that govern it. Nevada Republicans are on firm ground there. But it is not a good look if the current rules give (or recently gave) a thumbs up to the presidential primary and the state party is suing to get out of it. That would not suggest good management at the party. 

But again, the rules may be different. They could have been altered since June 2020 and the new version not posted. It happens. But the questions now are this:

1) Are there different rules in place for 2024 than the ones posted, dated June 2020?

2) What are those rules? Do they include a truly winner-take-all allocation method in the early window? Do those changes eliminate the presidential primary contingency? 

If Nevada is actually winner-take-all in the Republican process, then that is a big deal that deserves a lot more discussion than it has received to this point in the invisible primary. It certainly begs for a more prominent position than the next-to-last paragraph in a story. 

But if the rules are the same, then why did that winner-take-all reference from Moyle go unchecked?

A lot of questions. Not a lot of answers. Not yet anyway.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 9:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Saturday, June 17, 2023

[From FHQ Plus] A glance inside one of the primary alternatives for Idaho Republicans

The following is a cross-posted excerpt from FHQ Plus, FHQ's subscription newsletter. Come check the rest out and consider a paid subscription to unlock the full site and support our work. 

--

[NOTE: Earlier in 2023, the Idaho legislature eliminated the separate March presidential primary in the Gem state. And due to a drafting snafu did not reinsert the necessary language to consolidate the primary with the May nomination contests. That has put both parties in the state in a bind for 2024.]

Already, Idaho Democrats have called for a special session to restore the primary, scheduling it along with the primaries for other offices in May as was the intent of the bill that was initially brought before the state legislature earlier this year. But Gem state Democrats have also put forth a contingency plan for caucuses on Saturday, May 18 if the legislature does not act to fix the primary problem in time for 2024.

But what about Republicans in the Gem state? 

For Idaho Republicans both the demands and the contingency plans are different. In fact, there are two plans from which the Idaho Republican Party State Central Committee will choose at the summer meeting in Challis on June 23-24: a caucus plan and a convention plan.


Presidential Caucus Plan

Idaho Republicans do have some recent experience with the use of caucuses for allocating and selecting delegates. The party last used one in 2012. But the 2024 caucus plan proposed by Region 2 Chair Clinton Daniel strays from the vote-until-a-candidate-receives-a-majority, winner-take-all method the party used in the cycle when Mitt Romney won the caucuses. 

Instead, the Daniel’s proposal would provide for a more traditional caucus with a more conventional allocation scheme. First of all, the delegates would be pooled under the provisions of the plan. There would be just one allocation for the at-large, congressional district and automatic/party delegates combined. Additionally, there would be a winner-take-all trigger, where, if a candidate wins a majority of the caucus preference vote statewide, then that candidate would be awarded all of the Idaho delegates. Otherwise, delegates would be proportionally allocated with a 15 percent qualifying threshold. Any rounding would be to the nearest whole delegate with any unallocated delegate going to the winner. 

Again, all of that is fairly conventional. But there are a few unique provisions in the proposed caucus plan:

  1. The date: The proposed date for the presidential caucuses in this plan? Saturday, March 2, the same day as the Michigan Republican district caucuses. Basically, both of those contests would fall into a position on the calendar similar to that of the South Carolina Democratic primary in 2020, the Saturday before Super Tuesday.1 That is not the February date that Idaho Republican Party Chair Dorothy Moon talked about in the committee hearing that derailed the presidential primary fix, but it is close. 

  2. A conditional caucus: But there is a catch in the caucus plan. If the state legislature restores the presidential primary before the October 1 RNC deadline for delegate selection plans to be submitted to the national party, then the Idaho Republican Party would use the state-run primary. However, Idaho Republicans would only use the primary if the election is scheduled for the second Tuesday in March as it was before H 138 unintentionally eliminated it this past legislative session. [This seems unlikely. What drove the elimination of the separate presidential primary in the first place last winter was the cost savings associated with consolidating the presidential preference vote with other primary elections in May.]

  3. A two-tiered filing process: If the prime, March 2 date is not enough to draw candidates out to the Gem state to campaign and spend money, the system under which candidates will file to participate in the caucuses may. The baseline filing fee is set at $50,000 under the proposal. Candidates may choose not to campaign or spend money in the state, but the campaigns would have to fork over an exorbitant fee to the state party, a fee that may cushion that blow to Idaho Republicans of candidates skipping out on the state. But that is not the only filing option. The fee is cut in half if the candidate holds an event in the state sometime during January or February 2024. That is still a lofty fee and it has the benefit of bringing the candidates into the state. It is a clever twist that a state party can more easily pull off with a party-run process (than a state-run one, the parameters of which are defined by state law).



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,
Share |

Sunday, June 11, 2023

Sunday Series: About that Unique Michigan Republican Primary-Caucus Plan (Part One)



--
News broke Friday that Michigan Republicans had come to a consensus and were prepared to vote on whether the party would go the primary or caucus route in the presidential nomination process for 2024. 

Rather than automatically utilize the state-run primary as the state party had done every competitive Republican presidential nomination cycle following 1988, the Michigan GOP was backed into a corner on its 2024 plans based on four main factors:
  1. Democrats in the state took unified control of state government in the Great Lakes state after the November 2022 midterm elections. 
  2. At least partially (if not completely) because of that flip in control of the state legislature and Democrats retaining the governor's office, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) voted to add the Michigan presidential primary to early window lineup of states on the 2024 presidential primary calendar. Michigan Democrats seized on the opportunity to have an earlier, if not greater, voice in the nomination process and moved to comply with the new DNC calendar rules for 2024.
  3. However, the new February 27 date for the state-run Michigan presidential primary would violate Republican National Committee (RNC) rules prohibiting states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding primaries or caucuses before March 1. Opting into the primary, would open Michigan Republicans up to the super penalty associated with a violation of those timing rules, which would strip the state party of all but 12 delegates (nine delegates plus the three automatic/party delegates) to the national convention. 
  4. Regardless of the potential for penalties from a rogue primary, Michigan Republicans, under new leadership as of early 2023, were already leery of a state-run presidential primary process that would be open not only to Republicans and independents (who want to affiliate with the party in the primary) but Democrats as well. 
Given those factors, the Michigan GOP in consultation with the RNC did not look on the primary or caucus question for 2024 as either/or but rather as one and the other. In a revised resolution of intent adopted on Saturday, June 10, Michigan Republicans chose to split 2024 delegate allocation across both the February 27 primary and congressional district caucuses to be held on Saturday, March 2. In a statement following the vote the Michigan Republican Party said the following1:
In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  
This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 
The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 
They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed. 


Cutting through the spin
Okay, revisit those four factors FHQ laid out above because they are important in pushing past the spin in all of this and getting to the crux of the matter. 

First, it is highly unlikely that either Michigan Democrats or Democrats in the national party were ever rubbing their hands together, saying "We've got Michigan Republicans now!" The timeline on the Democratic primary calendar decision suggests otherwise. The national party waited until after the midterms -- after it was clear which party was going to be in control of a variety of state governments -- before it settled on a lineup for the 2024 early window. Michigan, already an attractive option to the members of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, became even more attractive once it was clear after the November elections that the state would be under Democratic control. 

The national party decision on the calendar and any subsequent moves made in Lansing were made to affect the Democratic primary. There was little regard for the Republican process. And perhaps that is problematic. However, national Democrats have been rebuffed by the RNC over the last two cycles in their efforts to even informally coordinate the calendar. And on the state level in Michigan, it was Republicans in the state legislature who were driving a legislative push to an even earlier February primary date just a few months ago in late 2022. 

But shunt all of that to side for a moment. Democrats in Lansing and elsewhere were never really in control of anything other than moving the state-run primary anyway. Michigan Republicans always had paths out of trouble. But they were going to need a waiver from the RNC no matter what they chose to do. The point is that Michigan Republicans potentially had a national party waiver at their disposal if they successfully made that case before the RNC. Ultimately, it was state Democrats who had made the change and shifted the primary to a point on the calendar that violated RNC rules. And those rules have outs for just these types of possibilities.

Yet, choosing to go the caucus route would have potentially required a waiver from the RNC too. Michigan Republicans could not just choose to conduct caucuses. Those caucuses would have had to follow the February 27 primary to remain compliant with the RNC rules on timing. But merely opting to hold caucuses would not have ended the primary. Under state law that primary would have gone on as a beauty contest. And under RNC Rule 16 (a)(1), any statewide vote "must be used to allocate and bind the state's delegation to the national convention..." [Put a pin in section of the RNC rules. It is important for Part Two.] To hold caucuses after a statewide vote like that is counter to the intent of the rule, the language of which was added to prevent a double vote and/or non-binding scenario like those that proliferated in the 2012 cycle.

An RNC waiver would have provided a way to circumvent that conflict. But so, too, would have legal action on first amendment, freedom of association grounds (if the national party was for some reason not receptive to issuing a waiver). Political parties have a right to determine how they associate and who associates with the organization. Nominations fall under that banner, or precedent holds that they do anyway. 

The bottom line is this: If Michigan Republicans want to say that Democrats made the primary change without consulting them, then that is fine. That is a fair criticism. If the state party additionally wants to argue it prefers a caucus/convention system closed to all but registered Republicans to an open primary that allows non-Republicans to participate, then that is fine too. That is also legitimate. But exaggerating the control state Democrats have over the process is just that: an exaggeration. That is even more true in light of the fact that Michigan Republicans had recourse. They had ways around Democratic "control." One need not pretend otherwise.




--
1 The full statement from the Michigan Republican Party after the vote on the resolution:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Michigan Republican Party Protects the Voice of Michigan Republican Voters 
Grand Rapids, MI – June 10th, 2023 – In a move that threatens electoral representation and undermines the voices of Republican voters in Michigan, the Michigan’s Democrat controlled legislature advanced the Michigan presidential primary to February 27th. This would automatically cause an RNC penalty reducing Michigan Republican delegates at the RNC convention in Milwaukee from 55 to 12!  
This resolution complies with RNC rules and avoids the penalty. 
The Democrats thought they held the keys to whether Michigan Republicans have a voice regarding who is our nominee for president. 
They set the stage to make our process dependent upon when the Democrats end the Michigan’s legislative session. Today that control was destroyed.  
The Michigan Republican Party would have been derelict in duty, and grossly irresponsible to leave the decision of full delegate representation of Michigan Republicans in the hands of the Democrats.  
Republican voters are tired of the party seeking to cut deals with Democrats instead of protecting the voice and interest of Republican voters.  
This drastic reduction in representation at the Republican National Convention would have marginalized millions of voters and stifled our ability to have a meaningful say in the selection of the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. The Resolution of Intent passed by the Michigan Republican Party State Committee protects the voice of millions of Republican voters across Michigan by ensuring the will of those voting in the primary will be heard.  
This resolution simultaneously prevents the RNC penalty.  
Recognizing the urgency and gravity of this situation, the Michigan Republican Party State Committee took decisive action today. The Michigan Republican Party has taken a crucial step towards ensuring fair representation for their constituents. 
"The Michigan Republican Party stands firmly against any attempts to diminish representation of Michigan Republicans," said Kristina Karamo, Chair of the Michigan Republican Party.  
"We are committed to preserving the integrity of the electoral process and guaranteeing that all Michigan voters, regardless of their political affiliation, have an equal opportunity to participate in the primary process." 
For those in the party who do not trust the election system run by the Secretary of State due to election integrity concerns, they now have a representative voice for some of the delegates from Michigan.  
By asserting their commitment to protecting the rights of Republican voters in the state, the Michigan Republican Party has demonstrated their dedication to preserving a fair and inclusive electoral system. 
The Michigan Republican Party encourages all Michigan voters to stay informed and engaged in the political process. By participating in the upcoming primary elections, voters can make their voices heard and contribute to shaping the future of our great state. 
###


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 8:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Missing the Real Story on the New Hampshire Primary

Invisible Primary: Visible -- Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • How does Iowa fit into the Republican National Committee delegate rules? A deeper dive on the history of Rule 16 and how Iowa Republicans have no real recourse if New Hampshire leapfrogs the Hawkeye state into the first slot on the 2024 calendar. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Another day, another story from out of one of the traditionally early primary calendar states. Yesterday, it was Iowa. Today, New Hampshire is on the docket. 

But folks, in their zeal to make a story out of something that probably will not be a much of a story in 2024, some outlets have missed the real story in the battle between New Hampshire Democrats and the Democratic National Committee over the primary calendar next year. Well, most have missed the true story in Iowa and thus miss the bigger picture story on the evolution of the beginning of the 2024 calendar. 

That bigger picture story? How much differently Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire are approaching the threat of 2024 calendar rules that shift each from their traditional positions. Look, as FHQ noted yesterday, Iowa Democrats' draft delegate selection plan was a deescalatory document. Yes, the date of the more primary-like preference vote is still unknown, but the signals from out of the Hawkeye state are that Iowa Democrats are playing for a spot -- any spot -- in the early window on the Democratic primary calendar. In other words, they are not fighting for first. South Carolina already has that (official) distinction They are fighting for early. Iowa Democrats are demonstrating flexibility. They appear willing to play ball with the DNC.

New Hampshire Democrats do not. 

To this point, from the draft delegate selection plan to comment after comment from New Hampshire Democrats to state legislative actions that Democratic state legislators have supported, the picture is just the opposite of what is coming out of Iowa. It is all still shock and anger and disbelief. The pose New Hampshire Democrats have struck remains defiant. And the one good thing that the latest story from Politico by Holly Otterbein and Lisa Kashinsky does is showcase how very rigid and inflexible New Hampshire Democrats are being on this. 

A party-run primary as a possible alternative?
Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are shutting down the idea of a party-run primary before they’ve even formally been approached about it. Buckley said a party-run primary would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive, costing upwards of $7 million. 
“Absolutely impossible,” he said. “Where would I rent 2,000 voting machines? Hire 1,500 people to run the polls? Rent 300 accessible voting locations? Hire security? Print 500,000 ballots. Process 30,000 absentee ballots.”
Never mind that states equal in size or bigger than New Hampshire held first-time, vote-by-mail party-run primaries in 2020. ...during a pandemic. Democratic parties in both Hawaii and Kansas pulled that off in the last cycle. Any thought in New Hampshire of consulting with those state parties to discover best practices, potential problems, anything? Nope. Just overestimates on scale and costs and a complete inability to think even a little outside of the box. 

And that fig leaf that was a feeble attempt at passing no-excuse absentee voting in New Hampshire?
New Hampshire Democrats also argue they’ve made a good-faith effort to meet the second part of the party’s requirements to stay in the official early-state window — expanding voting access by pushing Soucy’s legislation to create no-excuse absentee voting in the state, albeit to no avail.
That just is not very likely to carry much if any weight with the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee. Is it a good-faith effort at a provable positive step toward the changes the national party requested of New Hampshire Democrats. It is! But it is also a very small step in the grand scheme of the plan the national party has put forth for the 2024 presidential nomination process. 

It is a half step at best. All the DNC wants in something like this is a willing partner to come to the table and work toward a compromise of some sort. New Hampshire Democrats' my way or the highway approach to all of this will put them in the same boat that Florida and Michigan Democrats found themselves in 2007-08. Democratic legislators (and governors in Michigan's case) supported those rogue primaries and when the DNC suggested alternative caucuses to comply with the national party rules, both state parties threw up their hands and balked at the prospect. That got each a full 100 percent reduction in their 2008 national convention delegations.1 New Hampshire is likely looking at the same fate. 

And that is the story here. It is tale of two "aggrieved" states and how differently each is reacting to the threat of calendar rules changes for 2024. It is the rigidity of the New Hampshire Democratic Party compared to the flexibility of Iowa Democrats. What it is not is a "predicament ... of the president's own making." It just is not. That is like saying the Florida and Michigan ordeal was one of the DNC's own design. Those states broke the rules the DNC put in place for 2008. Those state parties refused to explore alternatives for delegate selection. Those parties paid a price. The 55 other states and territories followed the rules. 

In 2023, all signs point toward 56 states and territories following the DNC calendar rules. [There are other budding violations of other rules elsewhere.] Only one state, New Hampshire, is indicating that it not only will not but also will not doing anything to meet the national party even part of the way there. Folks, that is not the president's problem. It is not the DNC's problem. It is New Hampshire's problem and Democrats there are trying to blackmail the national party into caving because of the possible general election implications. That is not a new practice, but in 2024 that is a recipe for sanctions from the national party. 

[One option in New Hampshire that FHQ has suggested and still has not seen anywhere else is tying something -- party-run primary, alternative state-run primary -- to town meeting day in March. That is when the New Hampshire presidential primary is supposed to be anyway. Or would be if not for the law that says it will fall on town meeting day unless another similar election is before the primary in the Granite state. Town meeting day is going to happen after the January presidential primary regardless. It could be an option for the Democrats in New Hampshire. It could be, but again, the party so far has not been receptive to alternatives.]

...
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is going to announce a presidential run? If only there had been some signs that this was coming. Seriously though, DeSantis closed the deal on 99 Republican state legislative endorsements (out of 113) in the Sunshine state on Wednesday, May 16. The floodgates referred to in this space yesterday were opened up. And DeSantis has a more than reasonable endorsement primary counterweight to the Trump rollout of Florida congressional delegation endorsements in recent weeks.


...
FHQ could use the Landmark Communications poll in Georgia out yesterday to point out how poorly Governor Brian Kemp would do in a Republican presidential primary in his home state. But that is unnecessary -- Kemp is not running -- and would miss an opportunity to talk about delegate allocation in the Peach state next year anyway. Yet, that is something of a question mark. Georgia will have an earlier presidential primary in 2024 than it (initially) did in 2020, and Republicans in the state will have to change the delegate allocation system they used in the last go-round to something more proportional (as the RNC defines it). 

Also, it is worth noting that Trump will address Georgia Republicans at their state convention next month where delegate selection rules for the 2024 cycle may be on the agenda.


...
On this date...
...in 1976, California Governor Jerry Brown won the battle but lost the war in the Maryland Democratic primary. But since Brown had not filed a slate in the Old Line state, former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the delegate fight and also won in the Michigan primary. On the Republican side, President Gerald Ford swept both the Maryland and Michigan primaries.

...in 1987, Illinois Senator Paul Simon formally entered the contest for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination.

...in 2004, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry swept primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and Oregon.


--
1 Yes, both Florida and Michigan Democrats had half of their delegations restored by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee during Memorial Day weekend in 2008 and full delegations from both were seated at the Denver convention with full voting rights after a concession from the Obama campaign. But the conditions will be different for New Hampshire in 2024. Team Biden and the DNC will potentially be less willing to show such leniency. The incumbent president will not be coming off a hard-fought nomination win in the primaries and needing to bring two sides of an evenly split party together. Instead, it will be two sides: one comprised of 56 states and territories and the other of one state delegation that wants to hold onto a first-in-the-nation relic that the president is trying to change in favor of a rotation system at the beginning of the calendar. Sure, there are general election implications here as well because of New Hampshire's status as a battleground state. But it is a battleground state with just four electoral votes.


--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |

Thursday, May 4, 2023

Raffensperger Zeros in on Date for Georgia's Presidential Primary

Thoughts on the invisible primary and links to the goings on of the moment as 2024 approaches...

First, over at FHQ Plus...
  • More on the delegate selection plan from Iowa Democrats (and an update on that caucus bill working its way through the state legislature there as the session winds down), a final update on Hawaii's presidential primary and Iowa's was not the only delegate selection plan to go live on Wednesday. All the details at FHQ Plus.
If you haven't checked out FHQ Plus yet, then what are you waiting for? Subscribe below for free and consider a paid subscription to support FHQ's work and unlock the full site.


In Invisible Primary: Visible today...
...
Georgia to March 12? Greg Bluestein and Mark Niesse at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are reporting this morning that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) is set to schedule the presidential primary in the Peach state on Thursday, May 4. And the choice is an interesting one. 
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger plans to announce the decision on Thursday to establish Georgia’s primary date for March 12, according to several people with direct knowledge of the decision who aren’t authorized to speak publicly ahead of a press conference.
Georgia added some flexibility to the timing of its presidential primary back in the lead up to the 2012 nomination cycle. Instead of the state legislature handling those scheduling duties, the body ceded that authority to the secretary of state and empowered the office with rather broad latitude on the matter. Despite that discretion, the presidential primary in the Peach still ended up on Super Tuesday in both 2012 and 2016, consistent with where the primary had been stationed in every cycle dating back to 1992.

But Raffensperger broke with that pattern for the 2020 cycle, initially setting the date for the fourth Tuesday in March, three weeks later than had become usual. And the move was something of a nod to Georgia Republicans. The state Republican Party took the opportunity of the later date to increase the delegate prize for anyone victorious in the Republican presidential primary. Delegate allocation shifted from a more proportional method to one that was winner-take-all by congressional district. Georgia was another piece in the bigger puzzle that was President Trump's renomination race. As in other states across the country, Georgia's 2020 plan made it harder for other candidates to win any delegates and easier for Trump to win, if not all, then most of the delegates in the state. 

All of that is important context for the decision Secretary Raffensperger is apparently set to make. Moving to March 12 would not only impact the ill-fated plans of national and Georgia Democrats to move the primary to a pre-Super Tuesday position, but it would affect the delegate allocation scheme Georgia Republicans would be able to use. Any plan like the one used in 2020 would not comply with Republican National Committee rules. Winner-take-most methods like the one used by Georgia Republicans in the last cycle are prohibited by RNC rules before March 15. 

That means that Georgia Republicans will have to return to a more proportional method similar to the ones utilized by the party in either 2012 or 2016. It may take some folks a bit of time to get there on this, but some will likely eventually argue that this move by Raffensperger hurts Trump because it dilutes any potential net delegate advantage the former president may take out of the Peach state next March. But honestly, that conclusion is not exactly clear at this point in time. The difference between a winner-take-all by congressional district method and a proportional one that has a winner-take-all trigger (as Georgia's did in 2016) can be negligible. If Trump is in the position he is in now in polls when votes are cast next year in primaries and caucuses, then it is likely that he would take fairly significant net delegate gains from Georgia regardless of the methods mentioned above. 

That, however, hinges on what Georgia Republicans decide about delegate allocation rules in the coming months. It seems unlikely, but the state party could opt for a strictly proportional method that really could hurt Trump or at the very least potentially stunt any significant delegate gain from the Peach state. 

All this just triggers the usual mantra used around these parts: The rules matter. And this calendar decision of Raffensperger's moves the needle there. 

...
Iowa Leftovers. I still do not feel like many folks have spent much time reading the Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan. Some of the reporting has been bad and some of the reactions have been worse.

From New Hampshire, Michael Graham at The New Hampshire Journal had this lede:
The Democratic National Committee may have killed the Iowa caucuses, but Hawkeye State Democrats aren’t going down without a fight. Their problem is that, even if they can somehow battle their way past the DNC, they’ve still got to contend with New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan.
This is just wrong. 

The Iowa plan in no way signaled that Iowa is fighting anything. In fact, it indicated just the opposite. If anything, the Iowa plan was a deescalation in its back and forth with the Democratic National Committee. Yes, it laid out a delegate selection process that will start with the likely January precinct caucuses. But the allocation process, the important one based on the vote-by-mail preference vote, will not kick in until that preference vote is completed. The Iowa plan went to some lengths to separate those two processes so as not to run afoul of the DNC rules for the 2024 cycle. It stands to reason, then, that the preference vote will not be complete until some time that is compliant with DNC rules. 

Now, those mail ballots may be sent out to Iowa Democrats at some point in January, but that is no different from absentee ballots being mailed to voters or early voting starting before early contests like New Hampshire's primary conclude. Hey, Californians started voting as early as February 3 in 2020, the same day as Iowa's caucus (and before the New Hampshire primary!). But results were not reported until Super Tuesday, well after the early contests in 2020. And guess what! New Hampshire's primary law was not "triggered."

Sure, there is a new secretary of state in New Hampshire this cycle, but the dynamic is no different. New Hampshire's results will very likely be in and part of the fabric of the 2024 presidential nomination races before Iowa Democrats begin to report on the preference vote there. 

Graham really should have led with Secretary Scanlan's last line from the New Hampshire Journal story: “We’re just going to have to watch and see what they do.” Indeed. If the Iowa Democratic preference vote ultimately is scheduled to conclude before New Hampshire, then there may be a fight, but all this "fight" talk is wholly premature in light of the plan Iowa Democrats shared on Wednesday.

--
And from Iowa, FHQ hates to disagree with our friend Tim Hagle, but I do disagree with elements of his reaction to the Iowa Democratic delegate selection plan here:
“It’s polite to say it’s in flux.” He [Hagle] added, “Nobody knows what’s going on at this point. ... The plan that the Democrats are putting through with a mail-in caucus, there won’t be that sort of that intensity where you’ve got to get people ready by caucus night. And so we’re probably not going to see a lot of candidates. It’s basically a disservice to Iowa voters.”
It is fact to say that the draft delegate selection plan is in flux. Plans from all 57 states and territories are at this point. But Iowa's plan made things a lot clearer about the path forward there. The disservice that the Iowa Democratic Party is doing is continuing to call the entire process a caucus. Yes, there is a brand there. But the plan offered by the party is no longer a caucus. The delegate selection process is through a caucus, but the allocation part of this -- the part that matters to everyone watching -- is going to be routed through a separate vote-by-mail preference vote. Folks, Iowa now has a party-run primary if some version of this basic plan is approved. That is what this is. Continuing to call it a caucus just confuses that reality. 


...
Polls may be flashing warning signs at President Biden, but just as troubling, if not more so, is the fact that a major union, the United Autoworkers, is holding off on endorsing the president. That is a biggish story about the potential Democratic coalition in 2024. Granted, the polling and the UAW not endorsing at this time may just fit into a broader narrative that is in vogue at this juncture of the invisible primary: embattled Biden. It is something of a theme this week, what with there being a story about Biden's possible troubles with African American voters recently as well. 

Of course, all of this comes before the reelection campaign has kicked into full gear for the president, the sorts of activities meant to woo valuable constituencies back into the Democratic fold for the general election in 2024. Voters are just not engaged yet. As Karl Rove noted over at the Wall Street Journal just this morning, Barack Obama was not in the best of positions at this point in 2011 either. Let's get into (or at least closer to) 2024 and see what the fundamentals look like and then we can talk about warning signs. They may be there now, but odds are high that the UAW will endorse Biden in the end and African Americans will solidly back the president (Yes, the margins matter.).


...
On this date...
...in 1972, Alabama Governor George Wallace (D) won the first Tennessee presidential primary.

...in 1976, both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan swept primaries in Alabama, Georgia and Indiana. Reagan's Indiana victory was his first primary win outside of the South. 

...in 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) won the Indiana primary on his way to the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.


...in 2016, Ohio Governor John Kasich bowed out of the contest for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.



--
Posted by Josh Putnam at 10:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Share |
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)